1 thought on “QLG Update from Forestry Source”

  1. Odd. The article doesn’t mention the loss of more than a million bucks in work from Chad Hanson’s litigation. Ironically, QLG is also the grandaddy of failed collaborative groups. The article also doesn’t say that Senator Feinstein, the mistress of flip-fliops, withdrew her support of the QLG, about 10 years ago. Then, she jumped back on, and put her name on the bill. The QLG is a perfect example of a collaborative group that fails when a mom and pop eco-group sues to thwart the consensus. I wasn’t a big fan of the plans to install a grid of 2 acre patch cuts across the landscape. Those patch cuts take all trees under 30″ dbh. Those plans lost in court, and the Plumas lost a HUGE chunk of cash, from using “internal outsourcing” to do the work. Since they didn’t have the manpower and expertise to do these projects, they had to spend about a million dollars to accomplish the work. My “billable rate” for my expertise at that time was $66 per hour, including motels, per diem, transportation, etc. Imagine how ridiculous it is to have 2 acre cable units scattered here and there.

    On the eastside, the QLG has been more effective in restoring landscapes and avoiding litigation. However, that hasn’t helped to keep the Quincy small log mill in full operation. There is plenty of “offsite” white fir in the understory of the eastside pine zones, fueling the intensity of the many wildfires plaguing that part of California.

    Chad Hanson has already gone on record as wanting to eliminate ALL logging, including projects on private land. I think his profits are going to drop, with a decided lack of projects to litigate, in his future, due to the Pacific Rivers decision.


Leave a Comment